The
Haunting of Borley Rectory - A Critical Survey of the Evidence
by Eric J. Dingwall, Kathleen M. Goldney & Trevor H.
Hall (Also known as the 'Borley Report')

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

From the preceding pages the reader, if he has had the
patience to follow us thus far, will be able to decide for himself what
remains of the evidence for the haunting of Borley Rectory. Never before
to our knowledge has such an examination been attempted, and rarely before
has such a wealth of evidence been presented to sustain a theory of a true
haunting. The story of Borley was, as Price put it, ‘the most
extraordinary and best ­documented case' in the annals of psychical
research. Were it not for the immense publicity given to the case and the
con­tinuing interest in it which still persists even to the present day,
we should not have considered it our duty to undertake the heavy labour
which a detailed examination of the case entailed. Partly through his
earlier books, but mainly through his investigation of Borley Rectory,
Price became known as a leading psychical researcher of reputation,
although there were some who always distrusted him and did not care to be
too closely associated with him.

The question as to whether Price presented a deliberately dis­torted
account of the Borley affair in his books is not, we think, now in doubt,
for this is a matter of simple comparison of the original reports
preserved in the University of London with those reproduced in the
published literature. Significant examples occur on many pages of this
report. (1)The probability of positive trickery on Price's part in
addition to his manipulation of the testimony is not, for obvious reasons,
so readily capable of proof at this distance of time. However, it may be
thought that the curious matter of the medals (pp. 6I-4), the written
testimony of Lord Charles Hope, Major the Hon. H. Douglas-Home and Mr
Charles Sutton (pp. 33; 71; 132-3; 31) and the odd circumstances
surrounding the excavation of the bone fragments (pp. 154-6I), combine to
produce a disquieting picture. Most suspicious of all perhaps is the
coincidence of the first outbreak of violent objective manifestations at
the rectory with the first visit by Price to Borley in June 1929 (pp.
39-4I;45).Extraordinary coincidences do occur, of course, but if this
explanation is not accepted the circumstances point somewhat directly to
Price himself being responsible for the throwing of stones, keys and
medals (of which Price was a collector), for the transformation of liquids
into ink (which occurred on one other occasion only, in Price's presence)
and for the similar

1 See pp. 48-9; 67; 86-7; 131, etc.

p.167

incidents which exemplified the complete change in the pattern of the
Borley ‘phenomena' which took place at this time.

The case for the haunting of Borley Rectory, however, does not depend
entirely upon the testimony and dealings of Harry Price. Had it been so
we should hardly have undertaken the task of the critical appraisal of the
evidence. The case rests upon the testi­mony of many other persons, and
it is clear that their opinions were coloured by the stories which had for
long been circulated about the house and the paranormal events said to
occur therein. The very nature of the history of Borley Rectory tended to
en­courage the acceptance of the theory of haunting. Indeed, the
extraordinary series of circumstances attending the Bull, Smith and
Foyster incumbencies all led less cautious students to the opinion that
Borley really was haunted and thus created the very atmosphere that Price
wanted to prevail during his own tenancy and the later observational
periods. Yet when analysed, the evidence for haunting and poltergeist
activity for each and every period appears to diminish in force and
finally to vanish away.

It would be tedious and
unprofitable to attempt here in any detail a summarised criticism of the
story of the haunting, since a short history has already been given in the
preceding chapters. We shall, however, say that we are of the opinion
that the spiritualis­tic beliefs of the Rev. Harry Bull were sufficient
foundation for the early accounts of apparitions, particularly in view of
his position of dual authority as rector and land-owner in a small
agricultural community. It is perhaps significant that some members of
the family denied the validity of these stories, which seem never to have
spread beyond Borley itself until 1929. If Mrs Smith's explanation of the
circumstances obtaining during her husband's incumbency be accepted,
nothing more need be said regarding this period except that Price's
appearance on the scene with a news­paper reporter adequately accounts for
the wide publicity given to the case in 1929, and that it appears probable
that the sudden beginning of `poltergeist' activity at this time needs no
other explanation than the presence of Price himself. It is curious that
his abrupt loss of interest in the case in July 1929 coincided with the
pebble-throwing incident reported by Mr Charles Sutton (pp. 31-3) and with
his possible knowledge of the suspicions of Lord Charles Hope (p. 33).

Only a small portion of
the results of our investigation of the circumstances of the Foyster
incumbency is included in this report, but we have perhaps sufficiently
indicated that we are of the con­vinced opinion that a paranormal
explanation need not be sought

p.168

for the extraordinary events which took place whilst that
curious household was at Borley. However, the tenancy added to the
reputation of the house so that by 1937, when Price renewed his interest
in the case after five and a half years, he was able over the name of the
University of London Council for Psychical Investiga­tion to direct the
attention of his observers to evidence for the haunting of the rectory
during a period of some forty years. The barrage of suggestion directed
against the almost wholly inexperi­enced observers through the medium of
the Blue Book of Instruc­tions, the history and somewhat sinister
appearance of the house and its peculiar acoustic properties, coupled with
the haphazard arrangements of the so-called investigation were, we think,
suf­ficient to account for the very minor incidents reported during the
year of Price's tenancy. The number of events was surprisingly small and,
as we have shown, many of the noises and other commonplace incidents
reported were qualified in the original documents as being probably
attributable to natural causes, although these qualifications were omitted
by Price in MHH.

Among the most
important witnesses was, as we have seen, the late Mr S. H. Glanville.
His opinions were much modified after he became acquainted with the new
facts which have been set out in the preceding pages. This report would
not be complete with­out our acknowledgment of the assistance given to us
by Mr Glanville, who freely placed at our disposal his considerable
experi­ence as an observer in the rectory in 1937 and 1938 and his wide
and detailed knowledge of the whole Borley affair. To anyone who ever met
him it is quite unnecessary for us to say that none of the observations we
have made regarding Harry Price's pre­sentation of the case is applicable
to him in any way whatsoever. It has, however, been stated by Dr Paul
Tabori in his Biography of a Ghost Hunter (London, 1950) that Mr
Glanville was in charge of the investigation, and since we regard this
remark as misleading we think it desirable that we should comment upon his
attitude towards the Borley mystery and the part he played in it.

Mr
Glanville was the first observer to enrol in response to Price's
advertisement. Far from being in control of the investiga­tion, he
informed us that he deplored the laxity of its organisation by which, in
the absence of a common log book at the rectory and the transmission of
all reports to Price, each observer was without knowledge of the
activities of his predecessors. With this quali­fication, however, Mr
Glanville, his son and a small circle of friends made the best possible
use of the weekends they spent at Borley. It was Mr Glanville who
prepared the excellent plans and photo­graphs which illustrated the first
Borley book and who collected

p.169

the factual
information about the rectory and its inhabitants which is not in dispute.
The results of this work were placed at Price's disposal when the latter
asked for the loan of Mr Glanville's note­book at the close of the
observational period. As Mr Glanville has said in a manuscript which may
be published, he did not regard himself as an investigator but as an
observer and an accumulator of evidence, good, bad and indifferent, to be
sorted out by Price in his capacity as Hon. Secretary of the University of
London Council for Psychical Investigation. Thus the planchette
experiments, for example, produced a mass of séance data duly recorded in
Mr Glanville's notebook. He told us he placed no faith at all in this
material, believing as he did that these messages merely originated in the
subconscious minds of the operators. He did not believe that any such
person as Marie Lairre ever existed and deplored the fantastic theories
which have been built up around her. He did not accept any of the alleged
apports at Borley as paranormally produced and was as critical as we are
over much of the testimony for the haunting of the rectory, particularly
in the later years.

On the other hand Mr
Glanville was of the opinion that during the observational periods of
himself, his son and a small group of friends for whose integrity and
critical faculty he could personally vouch, a number of inexplicable
incidents, mainly of an auditory nature, occurred under good conditions.
We admit that Mr Glanville's account of these happenings, for some of
which it is difficult to offer any satisfactory explanation at this
distance of time, constitutes one of the most puzzling features of the
whole case. There is, of course, evidence to show that the acoustic
properties of the courtyard could have caused sounds in the vicinity of
the cottage to be mistaken for footsteps and knocks in the house, but
whilst the possibility of echoes is not disputed, Mr Glanville was
convinced, as is his son also, that some of the louder sounds could not be
reasonably accounted for in this way. As the rectory is not now in
existence, experiments are not possible and we must be content to leave
the matter at that.

In Mr Glanville the
late Harry Price had a loyal friend and helper, but whether that loyalty
was fully appreciated and reci­procated is a matter of opinion. Mr
Glanville's integrity and standing in his profession were virtues of which
Price made use; he liked to have Mr Glanville with him on public occasions
involv­ing Borley, often to the latter's embarrassment when exaggerated
claims were made. It is, however, a remarkable fact that, although in
constant touch with Mr Glanville at the time and living only some two
miles away, Price should have refrained from mention­

p.170

ing to him his
proposed excavations at Borley in 1943, and should have given Mr Glanville
no opportunity to be present (see p. I6I). We have suggested that the fog
of mystery and confusion in which Price seems to have enveloped the
rectory wells and the discovery of the bone fragments may have concealed
something more than mere inexact reporting. If this happens to be true,
then clearly he could have paid Mr Glanville, of whose absolute honesty he
was fully aware, no more sincere compliment than the curious omission to
invite him to be present at Borley on that occasion.

At this point it may
perhaps be relevant to make a few remarks on the reasons for the serious
treatment that the Borley story received from responsible reviewers and
persons with established reputations. In this connection it will be
convenient to discuss rather more fully than hitherto the opinions of the
two late eminent jurists, Sir Albion Richardson, K.C., C.B.E., and Sir
Ernest Jelf, Senior Master of the Supreme Court, whose views we have
already mentioned (see p. 8), and whose opinions were used by the
publishers of The End of Borley
Rectory
to embellish the intriguing blurb printed on the wrapper of that volume.

Thus Sir Albion
Richardson, writing to Price on 22 May 1945 and sending him a statement
regarding the evidence which Price could use in his book, said :

The evidence which he
[i.e. Mr Price] has collected of the phenomena which appeared there is as
conclusive as human testimony can ever be and is admirably marshalled.

I have not met anyone
who has read the book - and it is mainly with legal friends of long
experience in the weighing and sifting of evidence that I have discussed
it - (many of them, like myself, pre­viously sceptical) who has not been
satisfied that the manifestations therein disclosed are proved by the
evidence, to the point of moral certainty.

It may well be asked
how it was that such opinions could be expressed when it was clear that
neither of the two distinguished lawyers had made any real attempt to
examine the evidence on which they relied. Part of the answer was
provided by Sir Ernest Jelf himself in his article in the Law Times ofq August
1941. ­There he points out that, from the point of view of a legal trial,
there was no `evidence'. Readers were not in the position of a jury who
had heard the witnesses give their story upon which they had been
cross-examined. The story in the box might well differ from that told in
the proofs. Their position was, therefore, rather that of a counsel
who, having read the proofs, was asked if a good case existed for
substantiating them. And Sir Ernest's opinion

p.171

was that they did
present a very strong case, stronger indeed `than most of us could ever
have believed possible before we had read the book', and that, on the face
of it, it was difficult `to understand what cross-examination could
possibly shake it'.

These opinions are
weighty and cannot be ignored. In order to understand them more fully it
is necessary to discuss very briefly the nature of legal evidence and to
show how its standards fall below what is required for scientific
purposes.

In law, evidence may
be regarded as the means (apart from argument) which `tend to prove or
disprove any matter of fact the truth of which is submitted to judicial
investigation' (Taylor). Now, one of the most important weaknesses in
legal procedure relates to what are called `facts'. Although evidence is
almost wholly concerned with them, it is rare indeed that we find any
lengthy discussion or definition of them, and it is precisely here that we
can see most clearly the division which separates the `facts' of law from
the `facts' of science.

The expression of a
fact must be clothed in words, and thus it has been said that, in one
sense, a fact is the subject matter of a proposition, e.g. `a dog has four
legs.' Generally speaking, many assertions about facts can be verified
here and now; other asser­tions relate to events in the past which were
formerly verified or, as is more usually the case, can only be established
through various kinds of oral and written testimony.

In science, we deal
generally not with particular facts but with facts of a particular kind.
The facts or data of science are liable to be checked by further
observation and experiment before they are accepted as the basis of
scientific theories and laws. In law, however, and especially in criminal
law, the `facts in issue' are not usually amenable to experimental proof.
The evidence relating to them may be direct, i.e. the evidence of
a fact actually in dispute or one actually perceived by a witness, or
circumstantial, where evidence of facts not actually in issue is
examined since it may be possible to infer from it facts which are
in issue. The evidence presented may be the verbal testimony of a
witness, the evidence embodied in documents, or the direct, real evidence
of some material object such as the medallions alleged to have
mysteriously appeared in Borley Rectory.

In law, evidence is
divided into various classes according to its supposed value. Thus what
is termed `best evidence' is that pro­vided by a witness in the box giving
his own observations. In the case of documentary evidence it is, of
course, the document itself. Legal text-books often fail to stress the
important point thatmany of the facts in
dispute are really events which are terminated

p.172

at the time that it
is sought to establish them by evidence. There is, however, more in it
than this. Since the evidence to be dis­cussed cannot be recalled into
active existence, we must depend upon human testimony where instrumental
aid is not forthcoming. Human observation is fallible and is affected by
many defects of sight, hearing, emotional states of mind and physiological
condi­tions of body together with a nexus of preconceived ideas and
prejudices. It has, indeed, been said that witnesses, even if honest and
free from glaring preconceptions, cannot be expected to be more than 50
per cent correct in their statements in the box. The data, therefore, on
which the judge often has to form his findings, are confused memories and
feelings relating to what the witness thought that he observed at the
time. Moreover, since the jury have to observe the witness, take stock of
his demeanour and note his mannerisms, a second set of subjective elements
enters into the question and still further obscures the issue. Thus, the
`facts' as found in law can often never be known to be identical with the
actual past events to which they are supposed to refer. To what extent
the jury's picture of the facts approximates to the actual past events, no
one can be sure. It is not therefore surprising that Oliver Wendell
Holmes once said of lawyers: `we have been cock­sure of many things that
were not so." (1)

From the above brief
discussion of the nature of `facts' in law and science it will, perhaps,
be understood how lawyers and many other educated people accepted the
evidence for the haunting of Borley Rectory. Treating the witnesses'
accounts as `facts' instead of distorted memories and guesses, derived
partly from notes and partly from recollections of what they thought they
saw, felt and heard, and having at the same time little appreciation of
the kind of material with which they were dealing, they were influenced by
the barrage of suggestion put up by Price and became not only the victims
of his propaganda but active supporters of his case to the detriment of
truth and historical accuracy. Hours of patient analytical work, such as
that by Canon Phythian-Adams, have been wasted because those undertaking
it believed in the tales put out by Price and in the reliability of the
material submitted to them. Fantastic theories were devised to cover
points in the

1 Quoted by H. W. R.
Wade in the Modern Law Review
(1940-1i, iv, p. 192). To
those interested in the psychology of errors in legal fact-finding we
recom­mend E. M. Borchard's Convicting the
Innocent (New Haven, 1932) where 65 cases are
described and analyzed. In a somewhat biting criticism of `legal
science', Loevinger in his paper on jurimetrics (Minn. Law Rev., Ap.
1949, xxxiii, p. 475) goes so far as to
say that amongst lawyers there seems to be 'complete failure to understand
the nature of scientific method - or for that matter of philosophy'.

p.173

narrative which, had
the true facts been known, would never have been considered at all. Some
of these `pointers' and `clues' were ingeniously worked out; and in EBR two chapters are
devoted to those propounded by the Canon of Carlisle. He argues his case
with lucidity, and his selection and interpretation of his `apport clues'
demonstrate at least a lively imagination. With respect, however, we
think that in the case of some of his `indica­tors' he could have made his
story even more compelling. For example, he suggests that the dead and
dry frog found by Mr Kerr-Pearse points to the well-tank in that it
represents a 'place-­once-wet-but-now-filled-in' (EBR, p. i87). Oddly
enough he does not suggest the obvious additional clue to the nationality
of the nun. French soldiers have from time immemorial been referred to by
the British Army as `Froggies', and we think that in this example the
piling of Pelion upon Ossa would have been additionally compelling.

Such methods of
reasoning are common throughout the whole field of psychical research and
examples of it can easily be found scattered up and down the literature.
It was the immense advertisement given to Borley that persuaded so many
otherwise sensible people that the `phenomena' taking place there were
truly paranormal, and that this was the kind of thing that serious
psychical researchers were inclined to credit.

To some people Price
seemed to possess a complex personality whilst to others the motives which
inspired him were simple and clear-cut. One of us (EJD) knew him well for
nearly thirty years, while KMG knew him for over twenty years and was
associated with him in many of his later activities and investigations.
He was a man of abounding energy and had a wide range of interests and a
practical acquaintance with a good many technical matters from numismatics
to radio communication and conjuring. Trained as an engineer, he ran his
own amateur workshop and some of his apparatus and gadgets were of first
class workmanship.

If the events in his
life be examined, it seems that it was only after his introduction to the
serious study of physical mediumship, through his visit with E J D to
Munich in 1922, that his thoughts turned towards making himself in
England what he thought Schrenck-Notzing was in Germany. From that moment
his course was set, but he went far beyond the aims of the German
investigator, for not only did he become the head of a so-called National
Laboratory but he gradually established himself as the leading British
journalist on psychic matters and exposer of fraudulent mediums.

p.174

As Price's fame
grew, so did the desire of others to share in observing the marvels he
described increase. With the founding of his National Laboratory, he
gathered around himself a number of scientific men who were interested in
parapsychology. These were permitted to attend some of the séances and so
provide publicity for Price and for the newspapermen with whom he was
deservedly popular. The same course was followed when, after the demise
of the National Laboratory, the University of London Council for Psychical
Investigation was set up in 1934, an institu­tion which actually
had no official connection whatever with the University of London.

We cannot now
determine with certainty the extent of Price's belief, if any, in the
paranormality of the events he described so graphically. It is certain,
we think, that he did not believe in many of the phenomena. His
scepticism is sufficiently indicated by his privately expressed opinion of
Mrs Foyster and his entire lack of interest, apart from one visit, in the
case between July 1929and the spring of 1937. As was said
in the obituary in Nature (29March 1948), `Through the death of Mr Harry Price, psychical
research has lost its most distinguished journalist and writer of popular
descriptive accounts of adventures with the unknown.' A critic once
quoted one of his sayings that `so many people preferred bunk to de-bunk'
- adding `and that was what he gave them'. (1) It is possible to regard
Price as a brilliant if cynical journalist who used the material gathered
either in his laboratory or in the field in such a way that its publicity
value was highest. As we have seen, if the material lacked sensational
elements it would seem that he was prepared at times to provide these
himself. On the other hand, his motives may have been more complex; he
may have thought that there was some genuine basis on which to build his
stories, and that, by supplying what he thought to be the proper
psychological milieu, the genuine elements could more easily emerge.

To state, as we have
done, that his work is wanting from the point of view of serious research
and that, by his love of publicity and his temperamental deficiencies, he
failed to achieve lasting results such as few can have had the luck and
responsibility of approaching - leaves unsaid those things for which he
deserves credit. With all that can be said against him, it must be
admitted that it was he who, since Lodge, put psychical research on the
map for the man-in-the-English-street. But was it the right map? And one
of us (KMG) cannot omit a personal acknowledgment

of gratitude, for
she (and many others) owed to him and the hospitality offered at his
Laboratory an active experience of the problems and investigation of
mediumship which was unobtainable anywhere else in England at that time.

Were this report
merely another attempt to expose a badly con­ducted and fraudulent case,
we should not have attempted it. It is, however, much more than that, for
here we have tried to show how this kind of evidence is to be appraised,
how important it is to understand the psychology of testimony, and how
fatally easy it is to be led astray in this field, when those who should
exhibit the most absolute integrity in their work are themselves in the
plot to deceive their followers and the public who believe in their good
faith. Finally, the report illustrates the influence of suggestion in
this work, and shows how, once the mind has been affected, belief can be
strengthened and simple events misinterpreted in order to

fit them into the
desired pattern. Sir Albion Richardson stated that `Borley Rectory stands
by itself in the literature of psychical research' (EBR, p. 324).
Perhaps we may say that, fairly well acquainted as we are with
that literature, we are inclined to doubt it. It is certainly, as Sir
Albion said, a `fascinating chapter in the history of psychical research',
but its fascination is hardly the kind to which Sir Albion was alluding.